Is Baloch activist Naela Quadri a RAW agent?

Mian Abrar

Sources have claimed that Baloch activist Naela Quadri Baloch is being puppeteered by the Indian spy agency, Research & Analysis Wing (RAW), as the political arm of the insurgency that the spy agency is trying to create in Balochistan.

An official in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs told Pakistan Today that the Ministry has started gathering evidence about the activities of World Baloch Women’s Forum head Naela Quadri Baloch, who is visiting various Indian cities across the country to mobilise public opinion and ask India to launch a blatant military intervention into Pakistan to ‘liberate Balochistan’.

“This is another evidence of how India is plotting ethnic violence in Balochistan to sabotage the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project. We will take this matter up at the United Nations and in bilateral talks,” the official added.

According to a recent report published in the Times of India, Naela Baloch is conducting a countrywide visit of India for “mobilising Indians to do what prime minister Indira Gandhi did in East Pakistan in 1971” and “liberate Balochistan from Pakistan, the way Bangladesh was”.

“We have evidence that Naela’s visit is being facilitated by RAW. This is being regarded as a very dangerous and immature act by the Indian intelligence agency,” the source said.

In the last one year, Naela is the second Baloch activist who has been facilitated to visit India and publicly make a pitch for an “independent, secular and democratic Balochistan”, says the report in the Indian media.

She asked: “If Indira ji, with all her limitations, could do it, why can’t Modi who has got an exceptional mandate, a flourishing economy and enormous international support?”

In the first week of March, the security forces in Balochistan arrested Commander Kulbhushan Jadhav, a serving officer in the Indian Navy who had been deputed to RAW. 

Securing the nukes

Abdul Zahoor Khan Marwat

A report examining nuclear security worldwide suggests India's "nuclear security measures may be weaker than those of Pakistan" but says the risk "appears to be moderate". The Harvard Kennedy School report, "Preventing Nuclear Terrorism: Continuous Improvement or Dangerous Decline?" says it is difficult to judge whether India's nuclear security is capable of protecting against the threats it faces.

On the other hand, "Pakistan has substantially strengthened its nuclear security in the past two decades," the report says, citing changes in organisations governing nuclear security, training, equipment and approaches to screening personnel, requirements for nuclear material accounting and control, approaches to strengthening security culture and "substantial changes in every other aspect of nuclear security covered in the survey" as reasons for the improved nuclear security.

Measures taken to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons highlighted in the report include: Allotment of 25,000 troops to guard Pakistan's nuclear stocks and facilities by the Strategic Plans Division (SPD); Equipment of sites with extensive barriers and detection systems; Separate storage of nuclear weapons components although this may change as Pakistan shifts towards tactical nuclear weapons intended for rapid deployment; Equipment of weapons with locks to prevent unauthorised use; Extensive cooperation with the United States to improve nuclear security.

However, on one count the report is wide off the mark. It claims the risk of nuclear theft in Pakistan "appears to be high" and likely adversary threats in India are "less extreme" than those in Pakistan. "Overall, the risk of nuclear theft in Pakistan appears to be high," citing "some of the world’s most capable terrorist groups, an environment of widespread corruption and extremist sympathies" as risk factors. It also says the possibility of collapse of the government in Pakistan or an "extremist takeover cannot be entirely ruled out".

Also, while there is "no clear trend, either upward or downward" regarding the level of risk for Indian nuclear sites, it highlights a trend "toward increasing risk" in Pakistan as its nuclear arsenal expands and the strategic doctrine shifts toward tactical nuclear weapons. The report also highlights which it perceives as negative trends including: Absence of recent US expressions of confidence; shift towards rapid-deployment tactical nuclear weapons; a 'probable' increase in the number of locations as a result of an increase in the number of weapons.

To say the least, the criticality of nuclear weapons for the country’s defence and international sensitivities are clearly known to the Pakistani security establishment, government and policymakers. Pakistan has taken several discernible measures to safeguard the nuclear components which are dispersed throughout the country and whose location is unknown except to the concerned people.

Those having fundamental discomfort with nuclear weapons in Pakistan, especially tactical nuclear weapons, should stop producing reports that are highly exaggerated and patently false. No terrorist group poses a threat to nuclear weapons, including tactical, in Pakistan, which are strongly guarded. Not only the weapons are in safe hands but also the nuclear programme works as a hedge against strategic threats to our security and gives us a prideful national identity. 

Abstructing course of justice in Samjhauta bombing

Abdul Zahoor Khan Marwat

Indian National Investigation Agency has recently claimed that there is no proof against Lt Col Prasad Purohit in the Samjhauta blast case. NIA’s Director General Sharad Kumar told the PTI here that there is “no proof against him in Samjhauta blast case. He was never an accused. I wonder why his name is being linked to Samjhauta blast case."

Giving a clean chit to the accused Indian Army officer, he said Purohit had been charge-sheeted by the ATS Mumbai in the Malegaon blasts in 2008 and the NIA was carrying out further investigations in the matter.

On the other hand, another key witness in cases involving 'Hindu right-wing extremists' has alleged that he was coerced into giving a statement framing people, including Swami Aseemanand, in the Samjhauta Express blast case. The man, identified as Yashpal Bhadana, a member of Abhinav Bharat, recorded his statement before a magistrate under Section 164 CrPC in connection with the 2008 Malegaon case being probed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

On February 8, 2007, two carriages of the twice weekly train service connecting New Delhi with Lahore were bombed near the Indian city of Panipat. Most of the 68 people killed were Pakistanis. While India squarely blamed Pakistan or Pakistan sponsored elements for the Samjhauta Express and Mecca Masjid blasts, it was later found out that Hindu extremist Swami Aseemanand had confessed that leaders of different Hindu communal organizations -- Bajrang Dal, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Abhinav Bharat, Jai Vande Matram and Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram -- had planned, financed and supported these terrorist attacks. The NIA had filed a charge sheet against eight people in connection with the Samjhauta blast case which includes Naba Kumar Sarkar alias Swami Asimanand, the late Sunil Joshi alias Sunilji, Ramchandra Kalsangra, Sandeep Dange (both absconding), Lokesh Sharma, Kamal Chauhan, Amit and Rajender Choudhary.

According to reports, Aseemanand later retracted his statement and was also granted bail by the Punjab and Haryana high courts. Head of RSS affiliated Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, Aseemanand was arrested by the CBI in November 2010 and charge-sheeted by the NIA in Samjhauta blast case. He remains under trial at a Panchkula court.

Surprisingly, the tentacles of the Samjhauta Express attack had spread to the Indian Army and Indian Military Intelligence. Colonel Purohit of the Indian Military Intelligence had admitted that Hindu terrorists were working to cause an armed conflict between Pakistan and India. Also, the Hindu terror groups were seeking to end India’s democracy and its secular status and wanted a conservative Hindu state in its place. The terrorists wanted to target the Indian Muslims besides other minorities, which are already sidelined.

According to Tehelka, an Indian investigative website, these groups have also deep penetration in the Indian Army, It was reported that there was covert support for the Saffron terror groups among the uniformed personnel and the Indian Army seemed to rally behind them. Purohit even claimed that Gen J J Singh, who was the Indian Army chief till Sept. 2007, was with him. Even more damning was the revelation by Purohit that “one of our own captains had visited Israel for training and meeting and demanded four things from Israel, i.e. continuous and uninterrupted supply of arms and training, an office with a saffron flag in Tel Aviv, political asylum and support for our cause of a Hindu Nation in the UN. The Israelis gave a very positive response and promised arms and asylum.”

Strangely, 19 witnesses have turned hostile in the Samjhauta case alone. Overall, about 40 witnesses have turned hostile in the trials in the Ajmer Dargah blast of October 2007 and the Samjhauta Express blast of February 2007. Many more plan to follow suit as part of a trend which began after the regime change at the Centre in 2014 i.e. taking over by Narender Modi. According to the NIA, they cannot prevent people from recording their statements afresh. Most of the 40 witnesses who have turned hostile in the Samjhauta and Ajmer cases have either claimed that "they were pressured to give their earlier statements" or "denied knowing the accused Swami Aseemanand or others whom they previously claimed to have met".

Nevertheless, the Samjhauta Express issue is very much alive despite attempts to subvert the witnesses and will remain so till full justice is delivered. 

Indian Air Force in focus

Abdul Zahoor Khan Marwat

The Indian Air Force is massive and so are the problems it faces.

The BJP chief whip in Lok Sabha, Arjun Ram Meghwal, admitted recently that Indian women were afraid of flying the MiG-21 fighters due to its high accident rate. On a supplementary to defence minister Manohar Parrikar on induction of women in the IAF’s combat stream, Meghwal said women were afraid of flying the MiG-21s due to their high accident rate. However, the Indian defence minister said since the MiG 21 is a single-engine fighter jet, any problem in the machine means the pilot has to bail out. He said the government had stressed on improved maintenance of the aircraft and India had achieved a very low accident rate in the last decade, including the lowest in 2013. The Indian defence minister was not truthful.

Not so long ago, the Indian Air Force had lost 29 fighter aircraft in a three-year period, including 12 MiG-21s, in crashes in which six pilots had lost their lives. As per Indian official records, more than 170 IAF pilots have been killed in MiG-21 accidents since 1970, a huge figure. The Russian Ambassador to India Alexander Kadakin said that spare parts of MiG-21s acquired by the IAF were fake. “For MiG and other planes, you need authentic parts. And then you are surprised why your planes fall because spare parts are bought from unauthorised sources.”

Meanwhile, soon after the attack at the Pathankot Airbase, a mock drill at the Hindon airbase near New Delhi has created a lot of confusion. Indian officials claim that Jaish-e-Mohammed sympathizers may now be planning to target the Hindon airbase in Ghaziabad. Earlier, in the light of the Pathankot attack, the Indian Air Force had issued shoot-at-sight orders to secure more than 20 key bases in the western sector. Security personnel were ordered to shoot down intruders without issuing the standard warning.

According to reports, in a special audit by the IAF, 54 IAF bases were identified where security was to be upgraded at a cost of more than Rs8,000 crore. The IAF has planned to mount smart fences, vibration detection systems, mini drones, thermal cameras and night vision equipment to detect possible intruders. Some of the air bases were Halwara in Indian Punjab, home to IAF’s Sukhoi-30 MKI fighter planes, Ambala in Haryana, home to Jaguar and upgraded MiG-21 fighter planes, Hindon, UP, home to C-130J Super Hercules special operations planes, Pathankot in Punjab, home to MiG-21 fighters and a mix of Mi-25 and Mi-35 attack helicopters, Chandigarh, home to IL-76 heavy-lifters and AN-32 medium lift cargo planes, Avantipur, J&K, home to MiG-21s, Srinagar, occupied J&K, home to MiG-21 fighters, Leh, occupied J&K, hub of IAF’s transport and helicopter operations and Sarsawa, UP, a helicopter base.

It should be noted that recent reports in the Pakistani media, both print and electronic, have predicted another stage-managed operation by the Indian establishment, perhaps at a military facility, anytime soon. 

An Overview of Swat Operation

By Tariq Rizwan

Like Kashmir, Swat is also considered a paradise on the earth. In early 2007, Swat was literally taken over by Mullana Fazlulla brand of Taliban. The whole Malakand Division fell to the fire brand militant group. Fazlullah, better known as Mulla Radio, was ruthless in dealing with civilians specially the womenfolk. Islamic Shariah was imposed; striping and hanging were started against the violators. Islamic courts were established to hear the cases and own Qazis were declared at District level to provide justice. Pakistan’s constitution was declared as un - Islamic.

Operation “Rah-e-Haq” was launched by Pakistan Army to clear the area from the so called Taliban and restore peace. A short battle was fought between Pakistan Army and the Taliban in late 2007 over control of Swat. Army troops clashed with Taliban for control of valley and launched full-fledged offensive on November 15, 2007. Initially, 3,000 infantry troops were sent to Swat to get rid of the invading Taliban force, massing in the district in a bid to impose their version of Sharia law that included preventing women's education, death penalty for barbers, music shop owners, and thieves, along with an anti Polio-vaccination campaign to prevent the local population from getting vaccinated.

Infantry troops were deployed in the hilly parts of Swat. Taliban reacted with a suicide attack, targeting a paramilitary truck which resulted into death of 17 soldiers and 13 civilians. Pakistan Army mounted a number of operations to oust the militants from their hideouts. Fighting erupted in the hills with Taliban attacking military posts whereas the military attacking Taliban hideouts on mountain side. Military sources reported that up to 130 militant fighters were killed in the attack. However, the very next day about 700 militants overran a military position on a hill in Khwazakhela. Police forces in Matta were completely surrounded by the end of the day. On 3 November, 120 police forces and paramilitary troops in Matta surrendered. Soon the Taliban got control of most of the Swat district and set up their own local 'governors' in Tehsil Kabal, Matta and Khawazkhela. On 12 November, 5,000 more troops were sent into Swat to bolster the local Law Enforcers.

On November 15, militants advanced from Swat, now under their control and moved into the next district to the east, Shangla. District headquarter, Alpuri, fell to the Taliban insurgents without any resistance. As the militants arrived in the town, the police force disappeared without giving any fight to the invaders. Army then turned to give fight to the militants and recapture Shangla. In the ensuing battle, about 100 militants were killed and Taliban started retreating from Alpuri but as a strategy to avoid further casualties and give fight to the troops in the hills. Taliban took up positions on the mountaintops. Troops chased the militants in mountains through ground offensive coupled by artillery fire. Two top commanders were killed and several hilltops were recaptured.  The fighting resulted in the death of 4 troops and 45 militants. Shangla was secured and the battle ended with a peace agreement between Army and Taliban amid criticism from locals and the international community specially US. Fazlullah group soon violated the pact while advancing in other side areas, frightening the government forces.

Pakistan Army started another offensive “Rah-e-Rast” on 16 May 2009 to clear the area from militants once for all. Clashes took place between the two sides in Mingora City. SSG commandos took action against the positioned 300 Taliban militants in deserted buildings. Fighting continued for a week. Amidst heavy-street fighting, large parts of the city were recaptured and Taliban were ousted. DG ISPR claimed the death of about 1,200 Taliban fighters and 90 Army soldiers. Number of families had to leave Swat and became homeless who were later allowed to come back and resettled. Two top aides of Sufi Muhammad, the founder of Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi or TNSM, were arrested in Amandarra on 4 June 2009. Both Muhammad Maulana Alam and Ameer Izzat Khan were claimed to have been killed in a clash when militants attacked the prison transport they were in on June 7.

Again when 300 Taliban surrounded local militia force, Army troops arrived for their rescue. Helicopter Gunships were sent to provide air support to militia fighting in the villages of Shatkas and Ghazi Gai, where the fiercest fighting took place. Pakistani paramilitaries also set up mortar positions on the high ground overlooking the villages. 20 homes of suspects were razed to the ground; towns of Chuprial and Kabal were recaptured. Muslim Khan, spokesman for Fazlullah and four other senior TNSM commanders were captured near Mingora, however, Fazlulla escaped after seriously wounded.

After defeating Taliban and restoring peace in Swat, the estimated as 2.2 million (UN estimates) displaced persons were brought home. Taliban commanders led by Fazlullah crossed over to Afghanistan and peace was restored. Life is flourishing and people are as happy as used to be. Children are going to schools and colleges once again without any fear to produce more Malala Yousafzai. The serene valleys and lofty snowy mountains of Swat have started attracting visitors once again.

The writer is a freelance journalist based in London.

Useless UNSC Reforms

Sarah Khan

Since adoption of the text for negotiation of reforming the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)—a powerful executive branch of the United Nations (UN) in charge of undertaking efforts required for maintaining international security— in September 2015, the debate on the reforms has come into renewed focus. On 04 May, during a closed door session India’s UN Ambassador Syed Akbaruddin, speaking on behalf of the Group of Four, called for Security Council’s expansion in the permanent category. Other delegates at the meeting posed a barrage of questions mainly seeking the criteria for eligibility of new permanent members if they were to be elected. At the outset, Pakistani Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi exposed the poor logic of India and its allies, saying that the G4 formula of adding more permanent seats reflected the self-serving national ambition of a few at the expense of the world body’s wider membership. The real purpose of India and G4, is self-serving as it sought six permanent seats for six privileged countries and only four seats for 182 member states of the UN.

UNSC reforms encompasses five key issues: categories of membership, the question of the veto held by the five permanent members, regional representation, the size of an enlarged Council and its working methods, and the Security Council-General Assembly relationship. Member States, regional groups and other Member State interest groupings developed different positions and proposals on how to move forward on this contested issue. The argument of many critics of the UNSC is that it isn’t effective and that it needs to be fundamentally reformed. The loudest calls for reforms come from those who believe that the inclusion of a host of new permanent members is the answer to the effectiveness deficit. Others argue that it is folly to suggest that the addition of new permanent members would amount to meaningful reforms Perhaps, the most well recited argument for an expanded Council (with up to six new permanent seats) is the argument that the Council does not reflect contemporary power realities and should therefore be reformed to reflect the so-called new realities of the 21^st Century.

Presently there are two different proposals for UNSC reforms. One proposed change is to admit more permanent members and other calls for more non-permanent members. In 2005, five UN member countries, Italy, Argentina, Canada, Colombia and Pakistan, representing a larger group of countries called Uniting for Consensus, proposed to the General Assembly to maintain five permanent members and raise the number of non-permanent members to 20. Proponents of more permanent members are usually referred as G4. The candidates usually mentioned are Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan. They mutually support one another's bids for permanent seats. The United Kingdom, France and Russia support G4 membership in the UNSC. This sort of reform has traditionally been opposed by the Uniting for Consensus group, which is composed primarily of nations who are regional rivals and economic competitors of the G4. The group is led by Italy and Spain (opposing Germany), Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina (opposing Brazil), Pakistan (opposing India), and South Korea (opposing Japan).

It is clear that aspirant countries understand the value of permanent membership, each has an interest in their own election and each uses the rhetoric of representativeness in support of their claims. Adding India, Brazil, Germany, Japan, South Africa and Nigeria is not an exercise in representativeness, nor is it an act of dispersing power. The aspirants claim that they are representative of their region, but in reality all G4 states are not true representatives of their respective regions. Rather they have conflicts with many neighboring states in the region which are raising concerns over their candidature for permanent membership of UNSC.

These regional powers, the so-called ‘heavy lifters’ (the largest countries in terms of economy, population and military power) claim that their membership of Security Council will help in improving the outcomes. This was the original rationale for the institutionalized privilege afforded the five veto wielding permanent members. The expectation was that permanent members would contribute more to the maintenance of international peace and security. But the events of last two decades and invasion of many countries outside the UN mandate suggest that permanent members only sought their own national interests.

In the past many of the smaller countries have been the real innovators, because they understand their limitations, they tend to carve out a niche in the Council’s agenda, and often contribute through the power of the better argument. The Arria Formula (Diego Arria of Venezuela), the refinement of the Panel of Experts (Robert Fowler of Canada), and even the concept of peacekeeping (Lester B. Pearson of Canada) were all suggestions of smaller powers. Infact, Pakistan is the largest contributor to UN Peacekeeping missions and it is the only country which has hosted millions of Afghan refugees since decades. India, Brazil, Japan, and Germany are all global economic heavyweights, but they have not contributed anything substantial for UN missions and mandate. Even the US, the so called champion of peace and security has never contributed for UN missions in terms of men or material.

The old adage “whether elephants make love or make war, the grass gets trampled” is an expression that applies to the concern held by many smaller countries. Their fear is that if six new permanent seats are created, they will be cut out of decision-making and their creativity will be lost to the Council. The Security Council is facing a deadlock on many issues due to differences among the existing permanent members. Adding new permanent members will cause complete paralysis of Security Council.  The expansion of UNSC will only aggravate regional tensions instead of resolving emrging crises. The so called heavy lifter (G4) will only be looking after their own interest at the expense of other regional states. Foregoing in view, it is suggested that the objective of the Security Council expansion should be to respond to the concerns and “aspirations of all, not just a few”. Before presenting proposals for reforms the G4 must address serious legal and logical loopholes in their position.

The writer can be reached at ardent.jingo@gmail.com

Who is Supporting Daish in Afghanistan?

By Sajjad Shaukat

It has been learnt through credible online sources that Engineer Mohammad Khan, the 1^st Advisor and a close friend of Afghan Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah has been arrested by Afghan forces/agencies for alleged links with the Islamic State group also known as Daish, ISIS or ISIL. Information strongly suggests that Daish has penetrated even in high ranking Afghan government officials as well.

In this regard, it is notable that Ajit Doval, the ex-spymaster who is now National Security Advisor of Indian Prime Minister Narendra is the real author and controller of India’s offensive-defensive doctrine.

As part of its offensive-defensive doctrine, India is destabilizing Afghanistan—all regional states, while its major focus has always been towards Pakistan, a policy of weakening Pakistan.

Waging a prolonged war in Afghanistan, the US and other NATO countries have realized that after the withdrawal of foreign troops, Afghanistan would be thrown in an era of uncertainly and civil war. They recognize the fact and terrorism or stability in Pakistan and Afghanistan is interrelated. Therefore, US-led developed nations which also spent billions of dollars for the development of Afghanistan have repeatedly agreed that without Islamabad’s help, stability cannot be achieved there. Unfortunately, India does not intend see peace in that country and is undermining regional stability by creating unrest in Afghanistan and some other countries, and by sabotaging their cordial relations.   

As regards Afghanistan, India is playing a double game in accordance with the offensive-defensive doctrine of Ajit Doval. RAW has well-established its network in Afghanistan and is in connivance with the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Daish). On January 13, 2015, at least seven personal of the Afghan security forces died during the suicide attack which targeted the Pakistani consulate in Jalalabad. ISIS claimed responsibility for the terror assault.

The attack which coincided with efforts to restart the stalled peace process with Taliban insurgents and ease diplomatic tensions between India and Pakistan, added a dangerous new element to Afghanistan’s volatile security mix. In this context, delegates from Afghanistan, Pakistan, China and the United States had met to try to resurrect efforts to end nearly 15 years of bloodshed in Afghanistan.

In this respect, in the recent past, cordial relations were established between Pakistan and Afghanistan when Afghan President Ashraf Ghani had realized that Afghanistan and Pakistan were facing similar challenges of terrorism and would combat this threat collectively.

While, it is misfortune that on direction of New Delhi and like the former regime of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan’s present rulers have also started accusing Pakistan of cross-border terrorism. In this connection, after hours of the Taliban captured Kunduz city, on September 28, 2015, during his address to the UNO General Assembly, Afghanistan’s Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah blamed Islamabad for carrying out cross-border attacks and destabilizing Afghanistan.

Differences exist between Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah and President Ashraf Ghani, as the former wants cordial relations with New Delhi at the cost of Afghanistan and the latter prefers Islamabad.

It is mentionable that on December 10, 2016, President Ghani accepted the resignation of Rahmatullah Nabil as director of the Afghan intelligence agency, National Directorate of Security (NDS), after developing differences of the spymaster with him over Ghani’s move to attend the regional conference in Islamabad.

And Prime Minister Sharif and President Ghani also showed their determination that their countries would cooperate in fighting the threat of ISIS.  

The US is also playing double game with Pakistan, because it is the only nuclear country in the Islamic World, which irritates America and Israel. Hence, secret agents of American CIA, Israeli Mossad and Indian RAW which are well-penetrated in Daish are making efforts to weaken Tibetan regions of China, Iran and especially Pakistan’s province of Balochistan by arranging the subversive activities, promoting acrimonious sense of dissent, political volatility, sectarian violence and arousing sentiments of separatism. In this regard, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is their special target.

Again, in case of Afghanistan, there are several groups of Al-Qaeda, Daesh and Taliban like the TTP. Some of them are being used by secret agencies like CIA, Mossad and RAW to obtain the collective and individual designs of their countries against Pakistan and Middle Eastern countries. India and Israel which want to prolong the stay of the US-led NATO troops in Afghanistan which have become the center of covert activities, are exploiting their dual policy, especially of America against Pakistan, China and Iran. Particularly, terrorists of Daish and TTP which are strategic assets of the CIA, RAW and Mossad have claimed responsibility for several terror attacks inside Pakistan, including the recent ones in Lahore, Balochistan, Karachi and in Afghanistan.

In fact, in collusion with Afghanistan’s NDS, especially, RAW has set up its secret  network in Afghanistan, and is fully assisting cross-border incursions and terror-activities in various regions of Pakistan through Baloch separatist elements and anti-Pakistan groups like Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA), Jundullah (God’s soldiers) and TTP.

It is an undeniable fact that Ajit Doval’s cronies are creating law and order problems in Afghanistan. Particularly, Indian nexus with Daish and TTP leaders like Hakimullah Masood and Mulla Fazalullah has been proved by the recent revelation of the TTP militant Latifullah Mahsood regarding the incident of Army Public School Peshawar and exploitation of Baloch sub-nationalists. It has also exposed Ajeet Doval’s offensive-defensive doctrine—anti-Pakistan statements of India’s BJP leadership, while pointing out that New Delhi is the main spoiler of peace in Afghanistan, and is still manipulating the militants of Daish, TTP,, East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) etc. against Pakistan, China and Afghanistan.

Notably, with the start of 2016, frequency of terrorist incidents has increased manifold in Afghanistan, indicating the frustration of the spoiler (India), after her proxies were uprooted from Pakistani soil. Moreover, Afghan people also feel wary of protracted proxy warfare, strife and lawlessness in their country and are desirous for peace. But, New Delhi does not want it.

Besides, Indian high officials and media have always shifted the blame game of Afghanistan’s unrest towards Pakistan. It is a true reflection of Indian establishment which is intolerant to any improvement in the bilateral relations between both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, if not checked in time by the US-led western powers, India’s offensive-defensive doctrine will destabilize Pakistan and Afghanistan including the whole region, jeopardizing the political and economic interests of America and NATO countries which demand stability and peace in the region, particularly in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They must also abandon their double game.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com